1996 JTR(SC) 377
1996 1 CCC(SC) 26901 ; 1996 2 CLT(SC) 101 ; 1996 1 CurCC(SC) 269 ; 1996 1 ICC 821 ; 1996 2 JT 649 ; 1996 2 MLJ 117 ; 1996 2 Scale 74 ; 1996 2 Scale(SP) 74 ; 1996 7 SCC 470 ; 1996 2 SCR 637 ; 1996 2 Supreme 364
1996(2) SUPREME 364
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Mukhtiar Ahmed -Appellant
versus
Smt. Husan Bano & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 1978
Decided on 14-2-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
The suit for declaration was rightly dismissed by High Court on the ground of res judicata.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.11
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Res judicata applies when a matter has been finally decided by a competent court, preventing the same parties from relitigating the same claim.
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a declaration for a 2/3rd share of a house, relying on being a co-owner. A previous final decree in a related suit had determined that the appellant was entitled only to 1/5th share.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the suit, as the earlier decree operated as res judicata against the co-owners, making the claim for 2/3rd share legally unsustainable.
Issues:
Whether a claim for a larger share of property is maintainable when a final decree on the same matter has already been passed.
Ratio Decidendi:
A final decree in a previous suit between the same parties operates as res judicata, barring re-litigation of the same claim for property share.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Res judicata applies when a matter has been finally decided by a competent court, preventing the same parties from relitigating the same claim.
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a declaration for a 2/3rd share of a house, relying on being a co-owner. A previous final decree in a related suit had determined that the appellant was entitled only to 1/5th share.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the suit, as the earlier decree operated as res judicata against the co-owners, making the claim for 2/3rd share legally unsustainable.
Issues:
Whether a claim for a larger share of property is maintainable when a final decree on the same matter has already been passed.
Ratio Decidendi:
A final decree in a previous suit between the same parties operates as res judicata, barring re-litigation of the same claim for property share.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs.
ORDER
The appellant had laid the suit for declaration of 2/3rd share of the house in his favour, on the premise that he was a co-onwer. It is not in dispute that on a previous occasion in a suit filed by the co-sharer, a finding was recorded that he was not entitled for 2/3rd share but to 1/5th share. The said decree became final. In view of the matter, it operates as res judicata as against the co-owners. He cannot claim any share in the suit for 2/3rd share. The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the suit. We do not think there is any legality in the finding recorded by the High Court.
2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Mukhtiar Ahmad v. Smt. Husan Bano & Ors., 1996(2) Supreme 364 : JT 1996(2) SC 649
00018